Batch List Symbol Pins

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Despite strong annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the coordinate system ('symbol-local coords, Y-up per KiCAD lib convention'), warns about the pre-rotation nature, and describes the body_bbox derivation (±1.27mm). It also details the compact mode behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then provides usage guidance, output details, an important coordinate warning, and a compact-mode tip. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. It is appropriately sized given the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is thorough: it explains the return content (pins, body_bbox), the coordinate frame, and when to use an alternative tool. Even though an output schema exists, the description adds necessary context about coordinate conventions that would not be obvious from the schema alone. The tool is well-contextualized among its siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters, providing a solid baseline of 3. The description goes beyond this by giving concrete guidance for the 'compact' parameter: 'Set compact=true for simple 2-pin passives (Device:R/C/L) to get just pin_count, body_bbox, and is_symmetric.' This adds practical semantics not present in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Return') and clearly states the resource and scope: 'pin names, numbers, types, and symbol-local coordinates for multiple symbols in a single call.' It also differentiates itself from the sibling 'list_symbol_pins' by instructing to use it 'instead of calling list_symbol_pins repeatedly,' making the purpose unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit usage context: 'Use instead of calling list_symbol_pins repeatedly when placing a subcircuit — saves 5–10 round-trips.' It also specifies a clear alternative for post-placement coordinates: 'after placement use get_schematic_pin_locations for post-rotation schematic coordinates.' This goes beyond vague guidance and names exact alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.